Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

I've seen this theory a number of times (and I used to believe it myself), but I have not seen any definite proof at all. Nothing points to this being a common practice at all.

Most of the time, it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of DR values posted to http://dr.loudness-war.info, without accounting for the fact that calculating DR values from LPs is akin to black magic and very prone to faults.

I have checked a number of albums I own on both CD and LP and as far as I can tell, the actual dynamic range is extremely close or identical, pointing to the fact that they have been created from the exact same master, clippression and all, in some cases. So far, I have only found a single album (Lamb of God - VII: Sturm und Drang) where the LP may have been created from a different master, but it isn't 100% conclusive.

The vast majority of LP releases are simply cash grabs, intended to extract additional cash from fans, by offering a seemingly endless array of "limited edition" colored vinyl releases, with false promises of higher sound quality and fake collectibility. Fortunately, this fad seems to be winding down. Hopefully I will manage to sell off all of my modern LPs before the prices crash.

I don't listen to vinyl myself, so I have no way to compare and thus test this theory. Common example appears to be "I'm with you" by RHCP. And of course there is the broad range of "digitally remastered" crap out there - and those people who own the original master on vinyl and then buy the new CD because they fall for the "digitally remastered" propaganda will be disappointed and spread the opinion that "vinyl sounds better". I agree that current releases are usually either quite good on any medium (Daft Punk - Random Access Memories) or crappy on any medium (Metallica - Death Magnetic)...

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

I don't listen to vinyl myself, so I have no way to compare and thus test this theory. Common example appears to be "I'm with you" by RHCP. And of course there is the broad range of "digitally remastered" crap out there - and those people who own the original master on vinyl and then buy the new CD because they fall for the "digitally remastered" propaganda will be disappointed and spread the opinion that "vinyl sounds better". I agree that current releases are usually either quite good on any medium (Daft Punk - Random Access Memories) or crappy on any medium (Metallica - Death Magnetic)...

Let 's be clear. What you hear on vinyl is virtually never the 'original master'. The original master is what was created (on tape or digital) in the mixing studio. In fact, *mastering*, the practice, was invented because vinyl playback was a more limited medium than tape. So the tape had to be 'mastered for vinyl', e.g. bass summing, re-EQ, etc. That's what you hear on vinyl: a more or less compromised version of the original mixdown master.

CD was the first medium which offered the opportunity of letting you hear what was on the *original master* (tape, and later, digital file) with no generational loss or EQ/dynamic range alteration (a so-called 'flat transfer'). For better or worse! Sometimes the original master doesn't sound so great. (Maybe it was created on shitty loudspeakers; maybe the engineer or producer was high; etc).

Complicating matters further sometimes the CD wasn't sourced from the original master tape, but from a copy - including copies re-equed specifically for vinyl (a 'vinyl production master') . An endless circle of confusion.

Sometimes elements (musical parts) or sounds (e.g. fades) were added during actual cutting of the vinyl (and captured on the vinyl production master). Arguably *that* becomes the 'original master' -- but you're basically promoting the vinyl production master, with all its other EQ etc moves, to 'original master' status. Sometimes you can go back to the original mixdown master and replicate the additions for CD....sometimes not.

And then there's the fact that for everything but classical (maybe), it quickly became the practice to 'remaster' for CD -- goosing the EQ, editing out tape noise, and starting in the early 90s, limiting the dynamic range. Because, I guess, mastering engineers had to have something to do. And: business.

So now we're a situation where offering a 'flat transfer of the original mixdown masters' has become a *bonus feature* on some deluxe CD/BluRay releases. Back when CD began, it was *what was promised*.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

Also as far as the bickering on this thread: you get to like what you like. You get to prefer vinyl over digital for whatever reason , whether its the way it sounds to you, or the packaging, or the 'experience'. I'm sure all three play into it for vinylphiles to varying degrees. I miss those big album covers too.

You don't get to claim technical superiority or higher fidelity for vinyl technology over digital. You don't get to claim (not that anyone has yet) that one is inevitably more 'engaging' than the other, for everyone.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

I don't listen to vinyl myself, so I have no way to compare and thus test this theory. Common example appears to be "I'm with you" by RHCP. And of course there is the broad range of "digitally remastered" crap out there - and those people who own the original master on vinyl and then buy the new CD because they fall for the "digitally remastered" propaganda will be disappointed and spread the opinion that "vinyl sounds better". I agree that current releases are usually either quite good on any medium (Daft Punk - Random Access Memories) or crappy on any medium (Metallica - Death Magnetic)...

I know "Californication" also used a better (ie. not compressed and smashed all to hell) master for the LP release. But the number of releases where this is the case is extremely small, possibly in the low double digits, unless we're talking about extremely narrow niche releases.

For older albums (pre-CD) it can be the case that the original LP release can be more dynamic and have better mastering than a subsequent CD release, especially if it has been subjected to a bad late-90s/early-00s let's-crank-everything-to-11 remastering hackjob. LP re-releases are very likely to have then been created from the same CD-targeted remaster.

A lot of people seem to think that "buy the album on LP for better sound quality" is some kind of universal truth, when it's actually just bullshit, probably by some clever marketer who wants to reap the much higher profit margins on LPs.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

Sometimes elements (musical parts) or sounds (e.g. fades) were added during actual cutting of the vinyl (and captured on the vinyl production master). Arguably *that* becomes the 'original master' -- but you're basically promoting the vinyl production master, with all its other EQ etc moves, to 'original master' status. Sometimes you can go back to the original mixdown master and replicate the additions for CD....sometimes not.

Just a poor choice of words. With "original" I was trying to discriminate the *first* vinyl master from the *later* "Digital remaster". Nothing more, nothing less.

For older albums (pre-CD) it can be the case that the original LP release can be more dynamic and have better mastering than a subsequent CD release, especially if it has been subjected to a bad late-90s/early-00s let's-crank-everything-to-11 remastering hackjob. LP re-releases are very likely to have then been created from the same CD-targeted remaster.

A lot of people seem to think that "buy the album on LP for better sound quality" is some kind of universal truth, when it's actually just bullshit, probably by some clever marketer who wants to reap the much higher profit margins on LPs.

The interesting question is: When did the CD get a bad rep? I wouldn't be surprised if those "bad late-90s/early-00s let's-crank-everything-to-11 remastering hackjobs" you mention play a big role here. And it's not that rare of a phenomenon - on the contrary, it's quite hard for many albums to get "original" (oh dear, there is that word again) releases nowadays - it's not always the case that the remaster is bad, but there is a reason for the anti-loudness-war-movement. And just jumping into the wikipedia article on "Loudness war" you already get examples of how the loudness was increased with each release.

So I guess my point still stands: Those people who own *original* (dammit!) vinyl releases from their youth and have later decided to update their music library to the newer format (hm, that Ikea Expedit doesn't go well with my new furniture - where will all my LPs go?) got disappointed by the CD and have wrongly generalized their opinion to the medium.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

Also as far as the bickering on this thread: you get to like what you like.

Since your post came via digital ethernet, mid way reading it, I started playing games, felt fatigued, unfocused and skipped to the next reply.It's psychology, not visual you see.Don't dare ask me for scientific evidence to support this!

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

Today I felt a bit nostalgic and washed some 20 vinyl records that I had bought at various thrift stores. [Also, I somewhat wanted to see what the vinyl mania is all about.] When I was a kid we listened to vinyl because there was nothing else and I remember not liking the experience. I just resigned myself to the popping and noise and other auditory imperfections of vinyl. But hey, maybe I missed something in my youth. Hipsters and audiophiles might be onto something after all.

So, I started listening to a recording of Rachmaninoff 2 by Entremont and could not finish because of all the popping and noise. (And I like Entremont and the way he does Rachmaninoff.) Then I listened to another LP -- Symphony No. 5 by Shostakovitch. There was less popping and noise and it was passable. I managed to listen to the whole piece.

But, still, after that experience I was perplexed. What is the frigging point of vinyl in 2017? It is so obviously inferior. (For those of you who know some physics, it should suffice to calculate the RMS voltage of thermal noise in the phono coil to see that vinyl is inferior to 16 it CD in the best case.) When I was a kid there was nothing else, so we kind of had to do it. But today's experience was a stark reminder of the inferiority of vinyl. Its only advantage might be visual -- it is nice to see the spinning disc. But that "novelty" wears off quickly, a bit like looking at the glow of tubes. Newly issued LPs might have less popping and noise than vintage ones, but they cost between $30 and $40. So, what is the frigging point of vinyl in 2017?

You might be interested to know that a good bit of ticks and pops are an artifact of the phono preamp which can exacerbate them if it has stability problems.

If you are running a low output moving coil, if you find that you have to load the cartridge with a low resistance to get it to sound right, this is a sign that the phono preamp is unstable. Loading of the cartridge does not affect it at audio frequencies, what is does is detune the tank circuit caused by the inductance of the cartridge and the capacitance of the tone arm cable. The RFI induced by this tank circuit can affect the sound of the phono circuit if that circuit is unstable. Stopping resistors anyone?? Most inexpensive phono preamps are unstable- many designers don't realize that the tank circuit can be over a 30db peak; that there is a lot more to it than a circuit that has enough gain and also the EQ.

Now if you are on a budget and are running a high output moving magnet cartridge, loading of the cartridge at audio frequencies is critical as the coil will ring. In addition, the resonant peak has moved to a much lower frequency and may be in the audio passband. This has to be tamed!

For more on this phenomena, Jim Hagerman has an excellent tutorial on his site:

The stability of the phono preamp is not a function of feedback or not and also not a function of tubes or solid state. Generally speaking, if the circuit is immune to RFI, its far more likely that you will be hearing less ticks and pops over the album side. This is not due to a lack of bandwidth but the stability of the circuit. Anyone who has dealt with an oscillation on the gate of MOSFET due to the lack of a stopping resistor knows what I am talking about.

It might also interest you to know that when an LP is produced, a test pressing is made to insure that the stampers are good. The producer and artist have to sign off on the test pressing- excess ticks and pops are not acceptable. I am very used to not hearing a single tick or pop when I play records unless the media is damaged by mishandling, but my phono preamp is quite stable in the presence of RFI.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

Now if you are on a budget and are running a high output moving magnet cartridge, loading of the cartridge at audio frequencies is critical as the coil will ring. In addition, the resonant peak has moved to a much lower frequency and may be in the audio passband. This has to be tamed!

For more on this phenomena, Jim Hagerman has an excellent tutorial on his site:

If optimized per Jim Hagerman's calculator, and nothing else was amiss (mistracking) would you expect moving magnet phono cartridges to sound essentially the same?

Because I've got one of these new turntables with internal preamp, capacitance of the cabling from cartridge pins to the preamp is low, below 50 pF. And if the spec that I found on lpgear.com is correct, inductance of my Audio Technica AT95E cartridge measured at 1 kHz is 400 mH, which puts my resonant frequency at 35.6 kHz, and suggests that I only need change the resistive load from 47K ohms to 89.4K ohms, and that ought to give me the most linear response that I'm going to get out of it. And given that the cost of a pair of 1/8th watt surface mount resistors is some fraction of a penny, it sounds like a pretty cost-effective mod to me!

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

Now if you are on a budget and are running a high output moving magnet cartridge, loading of the cartridge at audio frequencies is critical as the coil will ring. In addition, the resonant peak has moved to a much lower frequency and may be in the audio passband. This has to be tamed!

For more on this phenomena, Jim Hagerman has an excellent tutorial on his site:

If optimized per Jim Hagerman's calculator, and nothing else was amiss (mistracking) would you expect moving magnet phono cartridges to sound essentially the same?

Yes, if the tonearm is capable of tracking the cartridge correctly.

Quote

Because I've got one of these new turntables with internal preamp, capacitance of the cabling from cartridge pins to the preamp is low, below 50 pF. And if the spec that I found on lpgear.com is correct, inductance of my Audio Technica AT95E cartridge measured at 1 kHz is 400 mH, which puts my resonant frequency at 35.6 kHz, and suggests that I only need change the resistive load from 47K ohms to 89.4K ohms, and that ought to give me the most linear response that I'm going to get out of it. And given that the cost of a pair of 1/8th watt surface mount resistors is some fraction of a penny, it sounds like a pretty cost-effective mod to me!

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

Because you have zero evidence and only vinylphile BS speculation. That's why.

It is a well-known cognitive bias. Even a paradigm in the study of such. Even more than confirmation bias.But vinyl lovers sometimes even confess to it. And so you deny that it even exists, while yelling your usual textstrings. And cutting away everything you had not the intellectual ability to digest.

Today I felt a bit nostalgic and washed some 20 vinyl records that I had bought at various thrift stores. [Also, I somewhat wanted to see what the vinyl mania is all about.] When I was a kid we listened to vinyl because there was nothing else and I remember not liking the experience. I just resigned myself to the popping and noise and other auditory imperfections of vinyl. But hey, maybe I missed something in my youth. Hipsters and audiophiles might be onto something after all.

So, I started listening to a recording of Rachmaninoff 2 by Entremont and could not finish because of all the popping and noise. (And I like Entremont and the way he does Rachmaninoff.) Then I listened to another LP -- Symphony No. 5 by Shostakovitch. There was less popping and noise and it was passable. I managed to listen to the whole piece.

But, still, after that experience I was perplexed. What is the frigging point of vinyl in 2017? It is so obviously inferior. (For those of you who know some physics, it should suffice to calculate the RMS voltage of thermal noise in the phono coil to see that vinyl is inferior to 16 it CD in the best case.) When I was a kid there was nothing else, so we kind of had to do it. But today's experience was a stark reminder of the inferiority of vinyl. Its only advantage might be visual -- it is nice to see the spinning disc. But that "novelty" wears off quickly, a bit like looking at the glow of tubes. Newly issued LPs might have less popping and noise than vintage ones, but they cost between $30 and $40. So, what is the frigging point of vinyl in 2017?

You might be interested to know that a good bit of ticks and pops are an artifact of the phono preamp which can exacerbate them if it has stability problems.

I'm quite sure it is not stability problems with my phono preamp. When I listen to a new record, the popping is greatly reduced. So, this is nice controlled experiment.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

I'm quite sure it is not stability problems with my phono preamp. When I listen to a new record, the popping is greatly reduced. So, this is nice controlled experiment.

"Greatly reduced"? My point is that with a new LP you should not hear any. When people listen to my system they often ask what format I'm playing as there are no ticks and pops. Of course I like to take care of my records but I don't clean them (other than a dust brush) and they are still free of ticks and pops. Those only show up if the LP is abused, unless of course the phono section has a problem in which case they are everywhere.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

I don't quite agree. I love pulling a record from it's sleeve and sitting down to have a listen to it. It works for me in away that no digital format ever has (although I can have a similar experience with a CD). I listen to it. I don't browse the internet while it's playing, I'm not skipping tracks or playing a game.

Where did I speak about the foibles of digital audio?

And so you deny that it even exists, while yelling your usual textstrings. And cutting away everything you had not the intellectual ability to digest.

Dunning-Kruger is a heck of an effect Don't worry if you can't be cognizant, it makes it even funnier.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

I'm quite sure it is not stability problems with my phono preamp. When I listen to a new record, the popping is greatly reduced. So, this is nice controlled experiment.

"Greatly reduced"? My point is that with a new LP you should not hear any. When people listen to my system they often ask what format I'm playing as there are no ticks and pops. Of course I like to take care of my records but I don't clean them (other than a dust brush) and they are still free of ticks and pops. Those only show up if the LP is abused, unless of course the phono section has a problem in which case they are everywhere.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

I don't quite agree. I love pulling a record from it's sleeve and sitting down to have a listen to it. It works for me in away that no digital format ever has (although I can have a similar experience with a CD). I listen to it. I don't browse the internet while it's playing, I'm not skipping tracks or playing a game.

Where did I speak about the foibles of digital audio?

And so you deny that it even exists, while yelling your usual textstrings. And cutting away everything you had not the intellectual ability to digest.

Dunning-Kruger is a heck of an effect Don't worry if you can't be cognizant, it makes it even funnier.

I never quoted that, you liar.

Here is the posting that you quoted (and cut away most from; edit: in its entirity):

It is with some trepidation that I offer this opinion, but here goes anyway...

I think Funkstar might have something of a point when he talks about not browsing the net or skipping tracks when listening to vinyl. My hypothesis is that the effort involved in playing an LP has a psychological effect that encourages the listener to pay more attention so that the effort they've just expended doesn't get squandered.

This is a scientific forum, but psychology is still a science of some sort, isn't it? (Not proper science like maths or physics, of course )

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

It is with some trepidation that I offer this opinion, but here goes anyway...

I think Funkstar might have something of a point when he talks about not browsing the net or skipping tracks when listening to vinyl. My hypothesis is that the effort involved in playing an LP has a psychological effect that encourages the listener to pay more attention so that the effort they've just expended doesn't get squandered.

This is a scientific forum, but psychology is still a science of some sort, isn't it? (Not proper science like maths or physics, of course )

Aha, now we have it. In utter desperation, you are now basing your argument on Cliffs "opinion/Hypothesis", to support Funkstars nonsense.IOW, as predicted by Dunning-Kruger, you have no evidence...on a non-believer/evidence based forum.Well, you could always reach behind and pull some out. Let's see your peer reviewed psychology controlled experiments of vinylphiles, maybe hooked to MRI machines to show that special concentration/attentiveness to vinyl vs "digital".Or you could just be full of baloney.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

I'm quite sure it is not stability problems with my phono preamp. When I listen to a new record, the popping is greatly reduced. So, this is nice controlled experiment.

"Greatly reduced"? My point is that with a new LP you should not hear any. When people listen to my system they often ask what format I'm playing as there are no ticks and pops. Of course I like to take care of my records but I don't clean them (other than a dust brush) and they are still free of ticks and pops. Those only show up if the LP is abused, unless of course the phono section has a problem in which case they are everywhere.

I already provided a means for you to know if there is a problem. The real issue here is understanding how the pickup works. Seems to be in short supply here.

Quote

Brand spanking sealed new Norah Jones snap crackled and popped until run through cleaner.

Sure- did you test to see if your phono preamp is stable?

Again- if using a LOMC cartridge, if it requires loading to make it sound right (IOW if loading it acts as a tone control) then you have a stability problem. What happens if you put a 5 watt transmitter near the phono preamp while the covers are removed- can you upset it?

I'm quite sure it is not stability problems with my phono preamp. When I listen to a new record, the popping is greatly reduced. So, this is nice controlled experiment.

"Greatly reduced"? My point is that with a new LP you should not hear any. When people listen to my system they often ask what format I'm playing as there are no ticks and pops. Of course I like to take care of my records but I don't clean them (other than a dust brush) and they are still free of ticks and pops. Those only show up if the LP is abused, unless of course the phono section has a problem in which case they are everywhere.

I already provided a means for you to know if there is a problem. The real issue here is understanding how the pickup works. Seems to be in short supply here.

You did not provide anything of substance, just some irrelevant narrative and a link to an amateur level PSPICE model -- on a site that sells "burn-in generators", no less. You are either kidding or you have no clue about electronics.

Re: A day of vinyl -- a reminder of inferior technology

Let's try this again.Brand new opened record direct to TT, snap crackle pop.Said record cleaned, no snap crackle pop.

Right. And you missed the point, but that is understandable. What is at issue here is how many ticks and pops you would have heard if your preamp was stable and the LP was not cleaned.

The thing is, those ticks and pops are of course there on the surface. But quite often, they are too fast and low level to be heard if the phono preamp is stable. If it isn't, they set off the instabilities in the preamp and you're hearing ticks and pops that would otherwise be inaudible.

When you measure the phono circuit for distortion, this problem does not show up. But any designer that knows what a stopping resistor is also knows what the problem is and how to solve it.